Recent discussion in Administrative Law has begun to re-examine the relationship between public administration and citizenship. It is recognition of public administration's important civic role beyond formal administration. It is, as well, recognition that the dimensions of an "Administrative Citizenship" are subject to new realities, and, where, perhaps, the notion of citizen in public law, traditionally associated primarily with nationality and electoral rights, is also due for re-examination. In researching the history of these constructs of citizen and "administré", it is seen that 19th century doctrine made little distinction. Therefore the recent developments are more a re-convergence than an innovation. Yet still these developments have had to contend with such new realities, political and social, which have established that "Administrative Citizenship" no longer totally excludes non-nationals.Administrative Citizenship consists in the proffering of a series of rights to the "administré". A real power is accorded to them as well by the renewed participation in a greater variety of forms of administrative proceedings. In a sense there is an evolution in what is considered due to the Administrative Citizen. It is shifting the focus from a strict procedural duty, to a broader public accountability, and, perhaps, further to a duty to enhance the participatory experience of the citizen in public administration. ; En reconnaissant que l'administré est aussi un citoyen, des textes récents considèrent que la relation administrative est irréductible à un rapport d'usage et comporte une dimension civique ; les implications de cette "citoyenneté administrative" ne sont pourtant pas toujours élucidées. Cette identification soulève en effet de nombreuses interrogations, en particulier à l'égard de la notion de citoyenneté, traditionnellement présentée en droit public comme reliée à la nationalité et aux droits électoraux.Pourtant, l'examen des constructions respectives des notions d'administré et de citoyen montre ...
La démocratie administrative n'est pas un mécanisme inutile. Par conséquent, les éléments suivants sont considérés dans cet article: référendum sur l'initiative citoyenne au niveau local, organes consultatifs au niveau local qui rassemblent les fonctionnaires au niveau local et les clients finaux, les messages issus de la démocratie administrative, etc. Il souligne que la démocratie administrative favorise la participation dans la prise de décision publique par divers professionnels et la nécessité de la présence systématique de divers participants à la discussion (associations civiles, etc.). Enfin, les inconvénients de la démocratie administrative sont également observés. ; Administrativna demokracija nije beskoristan mehanizam. Stoga se u ovom članku razmatra: referendum o građanskoj inicijativi na lokalnoj razini, savjetodavna tijela na lokalnoj razini koja okupljaju dužnosnike na lokalnoj razini i krajnje korisnike, poruke koje proizlaze iz upravne demokracije itd. Naglašava da administrativna demokracija favorizira sudjelovanje u javnom odlučivanju raznih stručnih ljudi i potrebi sustavne prisutnosti različitih sudionika u raspravi (građanske udruge, itd.). Naposljetku, uočeni su i nedostaci upravne demokracije. ; Administrative democracy is not a useless mechanism. Therefore, the following is considered in this article: referendum upon citizen initiative at local level, advisory bodies at local level which gather officials at local level and ultimate customers, the messages which emerge from administrative democracy, etc. It stresses that administrative democracy favors participation in public decision making by various professional people, and the need for the systematic presence of various participants in discussion (civil associations, etc.). Finally, the downsides of administrative democracy are also observed.
L'établissement d'un État moderne en Europe a entraîné l'apparition d'un système d'introduction d'un État sur l'ensemble de son territoire. La raison en est que les décisions gouvernementales doivent être appliquées de manière égale à tous. Cela ne peut être garanti que si les fonctionnaires, nommés par le gouvernement et responsables de la mise en oeuvre et du suivi de la politique gouvernementale, les transfèrent effectivement du niveau de fonctionnaire gouvernemental au niveau local et régional. En règle générale, l'administration centrale s'acquitte de tâches de caractère national dont la mise en oeuvre en vertu de la loi ne peut être confiée à un niveau régional. Cependant, l'État doit également avoir des fonctionnaires au niveau local qui mettront en oeuvre de véritables pouvoirs lors de la prise de décisions (sur la base de la délégation de pouvoirs), afin de prendre en compte les besoins et la situation locales. La «déconcentration» représente précisément cela. Par conséquent, nous traitons avec des services qui incluent des fonctionnaires nommés qui sont soumis à l'autorité d'un organisme central et qui représentent localement le gouvernement et les ministères. En France et en général, nous distinguons trois catégories d'administrations: l'administration centrale, l'administration périphérique (décentralisée ou déconcentrée), l'administration spécialisée indépendante qui reste néanmoins rattachée à l'un des ministères compétents qui supervisent les organismes placés sous le contrôle du gouvernement. La déconcentration à la française enrichit la dimension interministérielle, présente localement chez le préfet qui représente le président du gouvernement et les ministres et qui est chargé de la gestion du territoire, du dialogue avec les représentants locaux du pouvoir exécutif et de la modernisation de l'administration. Compte tenu de la carte administrative de la France comprenant trente mille communes, une centaine de départements et une vingtaine de régions (13 depuis 2015), la déconcentration repose sur les éléments suivants: le préfet de région met en oeuvre la politique nationale et la politique de la communauté (européenne) fixe des objectifs stratégiques, alloue des ressources , évalue l'activité de l'Etat. Le préfet de département est responsable de l'activité opérationnelle et de l'administration des politiques publiques. Le vice-préfet initie et rejoint des partenaires dans des «centres de vie» (villes et villages) au sein d'un département. ; Uspostava moderne države u Europi dovela je do uvođenja države na cijelom njezinom teritoriju. Razlog za to je potreba da se njene odluke primjenjuju jednako na sve. To se može osigurati jedino ako službenici, koje vlada imenuje i koji su odgovorni za provedbu i praćenje vladine politike, iste učinkovito prenose s državne na lokalnu i regionalnu razinu. Središnja uprava općenito obavlja poslove nacionalnog karaktera čija se provedba sukladno zakonu ne može staviti na regionalnu razinu. Međutim, država također mora imati dužnosnike na lokalnoj razini koji će provoditi stvarne ovlasti prilikom donošenja odluka (na temelju delegiranja ovlasti), kako bi se brinuli o lokalnim potrebama i okolnostima. Ovdje je riječ o "dekoncentraciji". Radi se, dakle, o uslugama koje uključuju imenovane službenike koji podliježu središnjem tijelu vlasti i koji lokalno predstavljaju vladu i ministarstva. U Francuskoj i općenito razlikujemo tri kategorije uprave: središnja, periferna (decentralizirana ili dekoncentrirana), te neovisna specijalizirana uprava koja je ipak povezana s jednim od relevantnih ministarstava koja nadziru tijela koja su pod kontrolom vlade. Dekoncentracija na francuski način obogaćuje međuresorsku dimenziju, lokalno prisutnu u osobi imenovanog prefekta koja predstavlja predsjednika vlade i ministre i koja je zadužena za upravljanje teritorijem, održavanje dijaloga s lokalnim predstavnicima izvršne vlasti i modernizaciju uprave. S obzirom na administrativnu kartu Francuske koja uključuje trideset tisuća općina, oko stotinu odjela i dvadeset regija (13 od 2015.), dekoncentracija se temelji na sljedećem: regionalni župan provodi nacionalnu politiku i politiku (europske) zajednice uspostavlja strateške ciljeve, alocira resurse , ocjenjuje državnu aktivnost. Župan odjela je odgovoran za operativne aktivnosti i upravljanje javnim politikama. Potpredsjednik pokreće i pridružuje se partnerima u takozvanim «središtima života» (gradovima i selima) u okviru odjela. ; Establishing a modern state in Europe has brought about the appearance of a system of introducing state on all of its territory. The reason this has come about is the need for government decisions to be applied in an equal way to everyone. This can only be ensured if officials, whom the government appoints and who are responsible for implementing and following government policy, effectively transfer them from government official level onto local and regional level. Central administration generally singularly carries out tasks of a national character the implementation of which pursuant to law cannot be placed onto a regional level. However, the state also must have officials at a local level who will implement real powers when making decisions (based on delegating powers), in order to take care of local needs and circumstances. «Deconcentration» precisely represents that. Therefore, we are dealing with services which include appointed officials who are subject to central body authority and who locally represent the government and ministries. In France and in general, we differentiate among three categories of administration: central administration, peripheral administration (decentralized or deconcentrated), independent specialized administration which are nevertheless still linked to one of the relevant ministries which supervise the bodies which are under government control. Deconcentration French style enriches the inter-department dimension, locally present in the person named prefect who represents government president and ministers and who is in charge of managing territory, maintaining dialogue with local representatives of executive powers and modernization of administration. Given the administrative map of France which includes thirty thousand municipalities, about a hundred departments and twenty regions (13 since 2015), deconcentration is based on the following : regional prefect implements national policy and policy of (European) community establishes strategic goals, allocates resources, evaluates state activity. The department prefect is responsible for operative activity and administering public policies. The vice-prefect initiates and joins partners in so-called «life centers» (towns and villages) within a department framework.
SUMMAIRE: I. The organisation of the administration/A. The external organisation of administration/1. The external organisation of the fédérale/2 administration. The external organisation of regional administrations and communautaires/3. The external organisation of local administrations/B. The internal organisation of the administration/II. Action by the administration/A. Administrative Act unilatéral/1. The unilateral administrative act in its existence and its élaboration/2. The content of the unilateral administrative act/B. Bilateral administrative act/III. Control by the administration/A. Controls administratifs/1. The action in Case administratif/2. Supervision of guardianship/B. Controls juridictionnels/1. Judge judiciaire/2. Administrative judge/C. Alternative dispute resolution ; SOMMAIRE : I. L'organisation de l'administration / A. L'organisation externe de l'administration / 1. L'organisation externe de l'administration fédérale / 2. L'organisation externe des administrations régionales et communautaires / 3. L'organisation externe des administrations locales / B. L'organisation interne de l'administration / II. L'action de l'administration / A. L'acte administratif unilatéral / 1. L'acte administratif unilatéral dans son existence et son élaboration / 2. L'acte administratif unilatéral dans son contenu / B. L'acte administratif bilatéral / III. Le contrôle de l'administration / A. Les contrôles administratifs / 1. Le recours administratif / 2. Le contrôle de tutelle / B. Les contrôles juridictionnels / 1. Le juge judiciaire / 2. Le juge administratif / C. Les modes alternatifs de résolution des litiges
Citizen participation to administrative decision is a developing concept in positive law. Still, its essence and scope have not reached consensus. The doctrine associates citizen participation to administrative democracy. Yet, participation fullfills other functions. It of course allows citizen to actively define general interest yet it also allows the citizen to defend his very own interest. At the same time, citizen participation both improves and legitimates administrative decision. Participation appears as a malleable concept. Its function depends not only on the actors psychology but also on the nature of the participatory instrument that legally implements it. The concept of citizen participation to administrative decision regroups several instruments, including the right to a hearing, representation of interests, referendum processes, and public participation procedures. The unity of participation gains meaning in its legal system, which is articulated around common guarantees ensuring the effectiveness of participation, that is to say, the right to prior information, the right to express a point of view and the right to an appropriate period of time to do so. Less systematically, the legal system of participation opens up to complementary guarantees to ensure its sincerity. This applies to the right of having a point of view considered, the presence of a third-party guarantor as well as the right to appeal. All these guarantees, however, are subject to diversified implementations. Indeed, citizen participation unity does not imply its uniformity. ; La participation du citoyen à la décision administrative est une notion qui se développe en droit positif. Toutefois, sa définition et ses contours ne font pas l'objet de consensus. La doctrine associe régulièrement la participation du citoyen à la démocratie administrative. Or, la participation remplit d'autres fonctions. Elle permet certes au citoyen de participer activement à la définition de l'intérêt général, mais elle lui permet aussi de défendre ses ...
Public freedoms are known and demanded by everyone, everywhere. They must be protected against any attack. The infringements of public freedoms are often by the administration. The first institution to guarantee public freedoms against the administration is the administrative judge, his regular judge. The administrative judge is the judge of the administration, he consider his action, rescind or conform its decisions and directed her orders. The administrative case law shows that the administrative judge often uses all the instruments at its disposal to protect public freedoms against violations by the administration. These instruments include the narrow interpretation of the cases of incompetence of the administrative judge in the matter, easing the admissibility of the action plan, the extensive application of the petition for freedom, the ability to complete the legislative gap that is to also broad and deliberate in administrative law, the creation of general principles of law, the most important being the principle of the exceptional character of limits on public freedoms and especially of the police measures and the principle of equality, the restrictive interpretation of laws unfavorable to public freedoms, the broad interpretation of laws favorable to public freedoms and the commitment of public responsibility in the service of public freedoms. ; Les libertés publiques sont connues et réclamées par tous et partout. Elles doivent être protégées contre toute atteinte. Les atteintes portées aux libertés publiques le sont souvent par l'administration. La première institution à garantir les libertés publiques contre l'administration est le juge administratif, son juge ordinaire. Le juge administratif est le juge de l'administration, il juge son action, annule ou confirme ses décisions et lui adresse même des injonctions. La jurisprudence administrative montre que le juge administratif utilise souvent tous les instruments dont il dispose pour protéger les libertés publiques contre les atteintes qui leur sont ...
Public freedoms are known and demanded by everyone, everywhere. They must be protected against any attack. The infringements of public freedoms are often by the administration. The first institution to guarantee public freedoms against the administration is the administrative judge, his regular judge. The administrative judge is the judge of the administration, he consider his action, rescind or conform its decisions and directed her orders. The administrative case law shows that the administrative judge often uses all the instruments at its disposal to protect public freedoms against violations by the administration. These instruments include the narrow interpretation of the cases of incompetence of the administrative judge in the matter, easing the admissibility of the action plan, the extensive application of the petition for freedom, the ability to complete the legislative gap that is to also broad and deliberate in administrative law, the creation of general principles of law, the most important being the principle of the exceptional character of limits on public freedoms and especially of the police measures and the principle of equality, the restrictive interpretation of laws unfavorable to public freedoms, the broad interpretation of laws favorable to public freedoms and the commitment of public responsibility in the service of public freedoms. ; Les libertés publiques sont connues et réclamées par tous et partout. Elles doivent être protégées contre toute atteinte. Les atteintes portées aux libertés publiques le sont souvent par l'administration. La première institution à garantir les libertés publiques contre l'administration est le juge administratif, son juge ordinaire. Le juge administratif est le juge de l'administration, il juge son action, annule ou confirme ses décisions et lui adresse même des injonctions. La jurisprudence administrative montre que le juge administratif utilise souvent tous les instruments dont il dispose pour protéger les libertés publiques contre les atteintes qui leur sont portées par l'administration. Parmi ces instruments figurent l'interprétation étroite des cas d'incompétence du juge administratif en la matière, l'assouplissement du régime de recevabilité du recours, l'application extensive du référé-liberté, la faculté de compléter la lacune législative qui est d'ailleurs large et voulue dans le droit administratif, la création des principes généraux du droit, dont les plus importants sont le principe du caractère exceptionnel des limites aux libertés publiques et surtout des mesures de police et le principe d'égalité, l'interprétation restrictive des lois défavorables aux libertés publiques, l'interprétation extensive des lois favorables aux libertés publiques et l'engagement de la responsabilité publique au service des libertés publiques.
Citizen participation to administrative decision is a developing concept in positive law. Still, its essence and scope have not reached consensus. The doctrine associates citizen participation to administrative democracy. Yet, participation fullfills other functions. It of course allows citizen to actively define general interest yet it also allows the citizen to defend his very own interest. At the same time, citizen participation both improves and legitimates administrative decision. Participation appears as a malleable concept. Its function depends not only on the actors psychology but also on the nature of the participatory instrument that legally implements it. The concept of citizen participation to administrative decision regroups several instruments, including the right to a hearing, representation of interests, referendum processes, and public participation procedures. The unity of participation gains meaning in its legal system, which is articulated around common guarantees ensuring the effectiveness of participation, that is to say, the right to prior information, the right to express a point of view and the right to an appropriate period of time to do so. Less systematically, the legal system of participation opens up to complementary guarantees to ensure its sincerity. This applies to the right of having a point of view considered, the presence of a third-party guarantor as well as the right to appeal. All these guarantees, however, are subject to diversified implementations. Indeed, citizen participation unity does not imply its uniformity. ; La participation du citoyen à la décision administrative est une notion qui se développe en droit positif. Toutefois, sa définition et ses contours ne font pas l'objet de consensus. La doctrine associe régulièrement la participation du citoyen à la démocratie administrative. Or, la participation remplit d'autres fonctions. Elle permet certes au citoyen de participer activement à la définition de l'intérêt général, mais elle lui permet aussi de défendre ses intérêts particuliers. Parallèlement, la participation du citoyen permet tout autant d'améliorer que de légitimer la décision administrative. La participation apparaît sous les traits d'une notion malléable. Sa fonction varie selon la psychologie des acteurs et selon la nature de l'instrument participatif qui la concrétise juridiquement. La notion de participation du citoyen à la décision administrative regroupe plusieurs instruments : les procédures contradictoires, la représentation des intérêts, les processus référendaires et les procédures participation du public. L'unité de la participation se dévoile dans son régime juridique qui est articulé autour de garanties communes assurant l'effectivité de la participation, à savoir le droit à l'information préalable, le droit d'expression un point de vue et le droit à un délai suffisant. Moins systématiquement, le régime juridique de la participation s'ouvre à des garanties complémentaires en vue d'assurer sa sincérité. Ainsi en va-t-il du droit à la prise en compte du point de vue, de la présence d'un tiers garant ainsi que du droit au recours. Toutes ces garanties font cependant l'objet d'une application diversifiées. L'unité de la participation du citoyen n'implique en effet pas son uniformité.
La maltraitance souffre d'une imprécision dans l'administration publique, et singulièrement en droit administratif. Or, les attentes du public en la matière sont de plus en plus grandes, et légitimes. Elles nécessitent donc d'encadrer plus précisément la notion. Celle-ci peut ainsi être appréhendée comme un comportement fautif d'un agent public (au sens large) portant atteinte à un droit d'une personne dans une situation de vulnérabilité face au service public. Directement contraire au principe d'intérêt général du service public, la maltraitance nécessite tout d'abord une politique claire de prévention des pouvoirs publics. Ensuite, en cas de fait avéré de maltraitance, l'administration doit en poursuivre l'auteur, et le sanctionner à la hauteur de la faute grave commise.
La maltraitance souffre d'une imprécision dans l'administration publique, et singulièrement en droit administratif. Or, les attentes du public en la matière sont de plus en plus grandes, et légitimes. Elles nécessitent donc d'encadrer plus précisément la notion. Celle-ci peut ainsi être appréhendée comme un comportement fautif d'un agent public (au sens large) portant atteinte à un droit d'une personne dans une situation de vulnérabilité face au service public. Directement contraire au principe d'intérêt général du service public, la maltraitance nécessite tout d'abord une politique claire de prévention des pouvoirs publics. Ensuite, en cas de fait avéré de maltraitance, l'administration doit en poursuivre l'auteur, et le sanctionner à la hauteur de la faute grave commise.
The concept of special administrative police is one of these concepts familiar to any public lawyer. In the academic textbooks and specific terms, it is obscured in the chapters relating to the purposes of State action or to the tasks of the Administration. The only problem is that this familiarity is only apparent. There is a considerable discrepancy between the attention given to that concept in legal literature and the strictly ubiquitous nature of its practical applications. What is considered to be: where an activity is regulated, there is a special administrative police. The scope of this concept therefore potentially extends to all existing substantive law, whether in public law (foreign nationals law, environmental law, competition law, urban planning law, etc.) or in private law (stock exchange law, consumer law, intellectual property law, etc.). In each of the areas listed, there is a non-natural balance between divergent interests, a balance which the public authorities ensure through binding regulatory processes. Each of these areas that can be intuitively seized as governed by a "regulation" process is subject to a special administrative police. As a result of or as a result of this disaffection, the decline of the special administrative police benefits from the end of regulation. Similar to these invasive animal species, the term has been continuing for thirty years to colonise French law, competing with and threatening to disappear this indigenous species, the special administrative police. The problem does not in itself arise from the very existence of this process of "legal darwinism", only its relevance. The regulation is characterised by an insuperable conceptual uncertainty. For example, when it comes to saying that national or European law 'regulates' a particular sector, there is no specific content, other than the vague idea of balancing divergent interests. This is useful because it allows for a more intuitive understanding by the law of the reality to which it is intended to apply. In ...
In regard to the principle of separation of powers, the distribution of competences between the administrative and the ordinary courts is based on the nature of the litigations. If the matter concerns the public law, the administrative court is competent. Whereas the ordinary court would have jurisdiction whenever the litigation in question is related to a matter of private law. However, this principle is not absolute. The French and Lebanese laws admit that there are cases where the judicial court would have competence in administrative litigations. This jurisdiction may be by nature when the litigation is related to infringement of private rights or individual liberty when the litigation concerns the personal status. The competence of the civil judge can also be by accessory when it's basically the competence of the administrative judge but is given exceptionally to the judicial judge. This is the case of public utilities managed by private management such as industrial and commercial utilities or concerning the litigation related to the management of the private domain of the government who behaves like a normal person. This judicial competence is at its height when the judicial judge interprets and appreciates by himself the legality of the administrative acts. The competence of the judicial judge in administrative acts is not only the result of the jurisprudence since the legislator interferes in many cases and grants competence to judicial judge in litigations that fall normally under the competence of administrative judge. If this competence is in most cases justified by the concern of good administration of justice, there are cases where there is no judicial nor legal reason for not granting competence to administrative judge who is the normal judge in administrative matters. ; En vertu du principe de séparation des autorités, la répartition de compétence entre le juge administratif et le juge judiciaire se base sur la nature des matières en cause. Si les matières visées concernent le droit public, c'est ...
Legal literature has shown that the administrative decisions adopted by national administrations within the scope of EU law may have extraterritorial effects. By challenging the principle of territoriality of public law, this phenomenon opens a new field of study whose object is the transnational dimension of administrative activity. Through the study of administrative cooperation between Member States, this work explores the establishment of a system of recognition of administrative decisions in the European administrative space. ; La littérature juridique a montré que les décisions administratives adoptées par les administrations nationales dans le champ d'application du droit de l'Union européenne peuvent avoir des effets extraterritoriaux. En remettant en cause le principe de territorialité du droit public, ce phénomène ouvre un nouveau champ d'étude qui a pour objet la dimension transnationale de l'activité administrative. A travers l'étude de la coopération administrative entre Etats membres, ce travail explore la mise en place d'un système de reconnaissance des décisions administratives dans l'espace administratif européen.
